Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Must an Illinois judge recuse when a nephew works at a party’s law firm but has no role in the case?

Short answer The Committee said the nephew’s mere firm affiliation did not require recusal; the judge had to assess whether the nephew had more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
August 25, 1994

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A judge’s nephew worked at a firm representing a party but was not counsel of record and did not work on the case. The Committee said firm affiliation alone did not disqualify the judge under former Rule 63C(1)(e)(ii).

The remaining question was whether the nephew had a more than de minimis interest that the case could substantially affect. The opinion identified the case’s effect on the firm, the nephew’s position, and the firm’s size as factors in that assessment.

The Committee said a judge should make the disqualification decision rather than use Rule 63D’s consent process to avoid it. Disclosure of a relevant relationship was advisable in the Committee’s view but not ethically required when the judge concluded that recusal was unnecessary.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 under the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on its analysis.

Common questions

Q: Did the nephew’s employment alone require recusal?

A: No. The Committee said affiliation alone did not disqualify the judge.

Q: What facts mattered to the nephew’s interest?

A: The opinion identified the case’s impact on the firm, the nephew’s position, and firm size.

Q: Was disclosure mandatory if recusal was unnecessary?

A: No. The Committee recommended relevant disclosure but said the Illinois Code did not require it.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1)(e)(ii) and (iii) to a relative within the third degree, and discussed Rule 63D’s remittal procedure. It cited the Code’s de minimis definition and distinguished nonbinding ABA commentary on disclosure.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1)(c), 63C(1)(e)(ii), 63C(1)(e)(iii), and 63D.
  • IJEC Opinion 93-10.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace